News analysis

Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation

Vatican ragged

Pope Benedict XVI celebrates an open-air mass in his native Bavaria on September 12th 2006, before an estimated crowd of 250,000 people

Source: AFP

Benedict XVI delivers the traditional "Urbi et Orbi" (To the City and the World) Easter message from the central loggia of St Peter's Basilica in 2007

Source: AFP

Benedict XVI leaves at the end of a weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square

Source: REUTERS

Benedict XVI at the Vatican watching the film "Karol, a man who became Pope", about the late Pope John Paul II

Source: REUTERS

The pope waves to the crowd in Piazza Duomo in Milan

Source: EPA

Benedict XVI prays inside St Paul's Grotto, on Malta

Source: REUTERS

Benedict XVI leaves at the end of a weekly audience in Saint Peter's Square

Source: REUTERS

THE man born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005 and has said he will resign from the office on February 28th this year, is normally seen as inhabiting the traditionalist wing of the Catholic Church, an organisation that prizes old things highly. This is only partly right. Benedict XVI endorsed the use of the old-rite Latin mass and pushed back hard against any suggestion that the church make accommodation with secular heresies on contraception or sexuality. But he was also the first pope to give a television interview, and the first pope to use Twitter. Benedict’s resignation, from an office that almost all its holders have died in, marks him out as a moderniser of sorts too, even if the speech announcing it was in Latin.

Following John Paul II—who had preached to hundreds of thousands as the Berlin wall came down, survived an assassination attempt and struck even a few atheists as a precious heirloom—Benedict was marketed as a pope for the church rather than for the world. He would improve internal discipline and stamp on heterodox preaching, just as he had as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a descendent of the Papal Inquisition, for more than 20 years. This turned out to be wrong too: Benedict has proved less abrasive and more cerebral than his billing suggested.

In fact Benedict XVI’s papacy is likely to be remembered as overly passive. Though he acknowledged that the church needed to go on “a long penitential journey” to atone for sins committed by its clergy, the church he presided over was slow to react to sexual-abuse scandals involving its priests and misjudged its response when it did. In America, the church’s chief contributor of funds, the scandals and the lawsuits that followed them have left the Catholic Church in a mess. Benedict once said that he had “no talent for...administration or organisation”. Unfortunately in this case his modesty, one of Benedict's most admirable qualities, was not false.

1) Ratzinger has made emotional speeches about sex abuse by priests, he said it is a grave sin, he said that the church needs to do penitence, but he never said that those sex abusers should be dealt with like all other sorts of criminals, by the secular authorities.

2) Maybe he resigned in order to have influence on the choice of his successor. That was suggested by Hans Kung on the Guardian: "Kung called the step understandable for many reasons. The 84-year-old, who worked with Benedict in southern Germany in the 1960s, added: It is to be hoped however, that Ratzinger will not exercise an influence on the choice of his successor. He repeated his past criticisms of the pope, saying: During his time in office he has ordained so many conservative cardinals, that amongst them is hardly a single person to be found who could lead the church out of its multifaceted crisis."

Asked facetiously when he will retire, before deteriorating into total physical and mental incapacity, Pope John Paul said, "there’s no place for a Pope emeritus". He seriously seemed to believe that he must fulfill a pledge he had made to the Church at his election: The pledge "to spend out his life" in strengthening his church. However, only a physically and mentally capable Pope can fulfill such pledge, not one who is impaired by Parkinson’s disease and crippled by hip ailments, and who is no longer able to walk or to talk without aid.
.
While some of his followers may have been moved by the sufferings of Pope John Paul II, to many objective observers he rather presented a disturbing vision of a papal frailty, ‘reflecting’ the general state of his church’s health: A frail and deteriorating institution under global attack. His physical and intellectual inability left John Paul in the end distracted from the wreckful challenge the Catholic Church was facing at that time, unable to react to the growing global priest sex abuse scandal before the church’s image was set irreparably ablaze all over the world.
.
The closest of his confidants, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, watched from the front row as Pope John Paul II in his later years steadily deteriorated, totally unable to deal with the problems that were reported to him. The observation of John Paul’s ordeal, which turned out to be also a tragedy for the church as a whole, has surely influenced Pope Benedict’s decision when he stated that he resigns 'for good of the Church'.

Pope Benedict was an eyewitness to the last days of John Paul II, and knows how much damage the church suffered by having a totally incapacitated Pope in office when a vigorous leader was needed. By bowing out in time when he feels his powers failing he is preventing another such vacant period. Inability to travel alone is a serious handicap for a 21st century Pope who should be seen by the masses in Africa and America. By his timely retirement he is doing his church a great service.

Pope Benedict XVI, 85, is known to have been suffering from rheumatism but there is no reason to believe that he is seriously ill; a resignation which was a stunning announcement, for the simple reason that popes do not resign.
.
Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, for whom as, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he worked for more than two decades, suffered from Parkinson’s Disease for years and his physical and mental decline were painfully clear for all to see, but he continued to serve the papal office until the bitter end.
.
The last time a pontiff resigned in harness was in 1415 when Gregory XII was pressured to abdicate in bringing an end to the Great Schism.
.
Yet, despite the shortage of precedents, it became clear today that Benedict has considered for some months resignation as a legitimate option.
.
Pope Benedict XVI is portrayed as a very shy and private man. His decision to resign was probably taken without consulting anyone except his own conscience, but certainly without the sort of cunning political calculation that has marked out many leaders of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries.
.
Lent starts next week which culminates in the Holy Week of Easter. This is the most demanding schedule in the pope’s calendar, one certainly in which he has struggled to fulfil during his time of office. The Conclave will be held during the weeks of penance, focusing the minds of cardinals’ in electing a new pontiff in time for Easter.
.
Despite Benedict’s orthodoxy and ultra-conservatism he has spent much of his seven-year rule taking people by surprise. A liberal theologian at heart, his election was stunning in its own right – some best-informed Vatican experts didn’t even put him on the short list having regarded him as too scholarly, too shy and too German in leading the Catholic Church. But he defied the odds and seized control of the College of Cardinals, gave an exemplary if highly reactionary speech and was elected in the first round.
.
Ever since, Benedict has been consistently unpredictable. He made an attack on Islam, and then prayed in a mosque in Turkey. He met victims of priestly paedophilia, toured Auschwitz, made peace with the Lefebvre ultra-conservatives, yet ushered into the Church a British holocaust-denying bishop, Richard Williams, into the clerical fold.

There is a chance that this pope's resignation may be his greatest legacy. In it I see a tacit acknowledgement of the power of biology over the most holy of offices. Forget twitter. One hopes this sort of modern human realism may extend in generations to come to dogma regarding homosexuality and marriage for clergy.

Ratzinger and his clique will never give voice to the message his body just delivered. Yet listen to it. Denial of our humanity does not serve the purposes of god or man on earth.

Another myth, the Church does not impede anything. Condoms are freely available in Catholic countries. And Church teaching clearly states that we are free to do what we want. What upsets people is that fact that it also very clearly says what is right and what is wrong. I'm not a priest and I'm not authorised to preach, but on the "do what you want" level, I can tell you that for most folk using condoms in sex is like using an umbrella under a shower. That's got nothing to do with the Church's official stance, other than that it sort of undermines your "simple" solution argument. It's not so much spirituality as reality that people find hardest to accept.

Decades after the world learned about AIDS, it also learned, at least those who are knowledgeable in the matter and objective enough to see, that condoms will never save Africa or any other part of the human inhabited world. The only hope is self-restraint, which is contrary to human nature but possible and achievable through religion, or as religious people more accurately say, with God's help. That's why the RC Church, with leaders like Benedict XVI, is absolutely right not to budge an inch on such fundamental issues (whatever people in the increasingly self-indulgent and affluent West might think). That's why the RC Church has survived to this day, and while it is losing followers in the rapidly ageing West, it is constantly gaining them elsewhere, including Africa. That is also why I returned to the Church.

What game? The Roman churh has tried to kill Jesus' family for 1700 years.. they even doctored the the cuttings from the Turin Shroud sent for carbon dating, as they knew fine well that the image on the linen showed A BLEEDING JESUS, ALIVE, AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION.. And if Jesus didn't die on the cross then "our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain"

There is this question as to who will be the successor to Ratzinger, some speculate the new pope will come from Latin America, others wonder if we will see the first "black" pope; alluding to the ethnicity of the new pontiff rather than the stance he will take on issues that have plagued the Church since the days of witch-hunting.
The most burning issue today is the worldwide proliferation of sex scandals, child molestation, rape and other such evils that point in the direction of the man and the institution that is the Catholic Church. In this instant, the perpetrator is a man of the cloth who chose to molest young boys, rape those who put their trust in Catholic Faith and offer a diluted apology that can’t even pass for holy water. What happens next is evil. The criminal gets a “get out of jail” free card and is shipped to another part of the globe where, thankfully for him, his reputation does not precede him. The wickedness of his acts is replicated in that new place, the silence of victims are bought and the rapists continue to swing his own frankincense-filled pendulum of faith, laughing at the law and how it has failed so many youths.
The John Jay report identified over 4000 priests who did everything from disrobing victims to engaging in group sex. Sadly, over 80% of them were boys and a fifth were under the age of 10, some as young as 1 year old.
Ratzinger came under fire for not doing anything about this, and truly his tenure will be best known for being flaccid.
It does not matter where the new Pontiff comes from, be it Britain, Spain, Latin America or the heart of Africa. If he continues to hide rapists, pedophiles and child molesters behind the institution that is the church, then he has done nothing to represent his country of origin or the faith he represents.

It's a matter of faith, since contrary to what its critics say, believers never deny that the Church is full of sinners, and that includes cardinals, even popes. So how come they so often get it right, when in secular states, be it the UK or USA (not to mention one particularly nasty moment in Germany) we so invariably get it wrong?

I am not a Catholic, but I do understand that the Vatican needed to be also a political institution throughout its existence. That's the crux of the matter.
.
In the moment when Christianity became the official religion in ancient Rome, it also lost its 'pacifist virginity' of Jesus' teachings. For Christianity to be officially 'recognized' was blessing and curse at the same time. Constantine took on support of Christianity not without a worldly zeal, namely to boost the weakening spirituality in Rome with the enthusiastic spirit of this new 'unconsumed' religion. It was clear for Christian leaders at the time that any 'official religion' in ancient Rome had the clear purpose to be, above all, a political vehicle in the interest of the empire . . . and they willingly took on this role.
.
Christian Bishops under Constantine began to function in an official capacity as Imperial advisors. Tax exemptions were granted to Christian priests and money was granted from the Imperial treasury to provide for new and rebuilt churches. All this made Christianity THE imperial religion in all but name.
.
As the new Roman faith, Catholicism became increasingly an instrument of Roman contemporary politics - and vice versa. This was a completely different role from being a persecuted underground-church without worldly desires for political power. For the Catholic hierarchy it needed the political impact of the Reformation to slowly realize that the church's true roots were 'spiritual', not power-political. This cognitive process continues down to the present day. Pope Benedict's stepping down was just another component in this process of realization. But this is also why it's beside the point to confront today's Catholic church constantly with the sins of an entirely different epoch.
.
The Catholic church's role today is a different one: There seem to be a desire for spirituality deeply imbedded in the human soul, which cannot simply be eradicated or swapped with rationality and worldly counter-ideologies, such as communism. Communism paid with collapse for its lack of understanding of the human soul's spiritual need for a world to come . . . after this relatively short-lived 'paradise on earth' is passed through, virtually in the blink of an eye.
.
The big question is for a majority of us humans is and will be: What comes after this vale of tears?
.
This is reason why Christianity and its 'counterparts' Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, non-catholic Christianity, and Buddhism exist . . . and why they will continue to exist for all eternity.

Reality is always applicable to the debate. And the fact of the matter is that the UN, EU even the USA and many, many other organisations have poured untold amounts into fighting AIDS in Africa and at the end of the day it's always the priests and nuns on the ground who (as elsewhere) pick up the pieces and give people a fighting chance. The fact of the matter is that families have always been the building blocks of civilizations (not only Christian ones). So you're free to look for alternatives, you're free to be as stupid as you wish, the only thing you, your children or grandchildren really have to do at the end of the day is suffer the consequences. That's why the Church is always necessary and relevant.

It is something to which a Catholic becomes accustomed. Non-Catholic friends make remarks critical of the Church to me frequently. If I were to say to an African-American, "How is it that all you blacks can't keep your wicks dry -- I mean, your sort pop out a baby like so many Pez dispensers" then I'd be bigot. But, if someone says to me, "I can't understand how you Catholics (it is ALWAYS "you Catholics") can oppose contraception in a starving world" then that is fine. Such comments are always unsolicited
----------------
I don't really mind it. The Catholic Church is counter-cultural. I was a wide-eyed radical during the 1960s and didn't mind the verbal abuse on subjects such as Viet Nam and civil rights. It went with the territory. Want to get along? Then go along! Many of us decided not to go along -- a few didn't "get along."
----------------
No one today satirizes the Episcopal Church, by way of contrast, because what's the point? If enough people tell the Episcopalians "We don't agree with your stand on X" then that church will hasten to amend its position on "X." There is no point in wasting energy on being mad at someone who is eager to agree with you. Were Martin Luther as the Protestant Champion to visit the Diet of Wurms today he would probably say, "Here I stand -- but if you don't like it I don't mind standing over there."
-----------------
The American Methodist Church is another example. Google their website on abortion and you will find a long screed on the ins and outs of abortion. After paragraphs of nothing, the AMC pronounces "We support the right to legal abortion." That's fine -- but I suspect a lot of people aren't impressed by what the Methodist Church supports. They want to know what the Methodist Church thinks is RIGHT or WRONG. Turns out that the AMC doesn't have a moral position on abortion -- it just sort of supports it. Kind of like supporting a reduction in the cod fish harvest until the stocks are replenished.
------------------------
The Catholic Church sometimes rubs my nerves raw -- and I am Catholic. But, there isn't a lot of mincing around. Such and such is the Church's position on abortion. Don't like it? Too bad! This really annoys people since these days we are all supposed to deal with one another with a sort of Minnesota Nice on hyper-drive. And, it gets worse. The Church is counter-cultural on gender issues, contraception, euthanasia . . . you name it. The Church does not, by the way, tell us which position is "supports" -- it tells us what it believes is right or wrong in the eyes of God. Perhaps what is says is wrong -- but what it says is well thought-out and, anyway, it is not looking for friends. It is looking for Faith.
-------------------
The Catholic Church, unlike the Protestant mish-mash, does not seek to make men "good." It seeks to make them holy. Being "good" is not all that hard. Being "holy"requires subordinating one's will to God. Subordination is not in fashion these days. We are all after "empowerment."

It's rather a paradox to expect a religion to be anything other than dogmas, canons & rituals. ANY religion is typically made of a spiritual & moral fabric that covers cold rationality and refuses to follow fashion and zeitgeist. Without this fabric a religion would be naked . . . . and, thus, not worth striving for from the viewpoint of its devoted followers.

You mentioned that Benedict XVI was "slow to react". Can you please tell me how YOU would react if you had a large, global organization, dealing with cases all over the world that you needed to investigate and lots of different government authorities and different civil laws to deal with (and with some governments not wanting to press charges!!!)

You seem to have better ideas than the Pope. Please enlighten us by giving a positive solution, rather than giving the generic word "slow".

Oh, and with regard to consequences. In this world it's most often the case that the inevitable consequences are borne by the culprit's children, grandchildren or complete strangers rather than culprit him/herself. Life's a bummer. If there was any justice in this world, eastern Europe would be affluent and western Europe would be exporting plumbers.

It is, in my opinion, not the Church which has become out-dated and must look at reform, but society which has moved away from the Church. On any matter, the Church has no obligation to bend with social changes and trends and is probably better off if it doesn't - because, when things all seem to go wrong, it is the values offered by the Church which society likes to look back to.

This Church should never bend to the will of popular culture - with 2000 years of experience and dedicated study and reasoning behind its' teachings, there is no reason why it should. Look around you and crimes are committed everywhere and by everyone, from all walks of life; this fact doesn't make the problems within the Church any less severe, but perhaps, I hope, adds perspective for any rational and unbiased thinker.